1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 TIFFANY BRIGMAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-02061-GMN-NJK 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING 5 vs. CASE

6 NDOC, et al.,

7 Defendants.

8 Pro se plaintiff Tiffany Brigman brings this civil-rights action under

to 9 redress constitutional violations that she claims she suffered while incarcerated at Florence 10 McClure Women’s Correctional Center. (ECF No. 1-1). On January 12, 2024, this Court ordered 11 Brigman to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $405 12 filing fee on or before March 11, 2024. (ECF No. 3). The Court warned Brigman that the action 13 could be dismissed if she failed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis 14 with all three documents or pay the full $405 filing fee for a civil action by that deadline. (Id. at 15 2). That deadline expired and Brigman did not file a fully complete application to proceed in 16 forma pauperis, pay the full $405 filing fee, or otherwise respond. 17 I. DISCUSSION 18 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 19 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case. 20 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may 21 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or comply with local rules. See 22 Carey v. King,

, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply 23 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 24 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). In 25 determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the 1 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 2 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 3 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Phenylpropanolamine 4 Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone,

). 5 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 6 court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Brigman’s claims. The third 7 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of 8 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court 9 or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 10 factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by 11 the factors favoring dismissal. 12 The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less drastic alternatives can be used 13 to correct the party’s failure that brought about the need to consider dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. 14 Amplifier,

, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives 15 before the party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan v. 16 Galaza,

, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short 17 of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 18 alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). Because this Court 19 cannot operate without collecting reasonable fees, and litigation cannot progress without a 20 plaintiff’s compliance with court orders, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 21 another deadline. But issuing a second order will only delay the inevitable and further squander 22 the Court’s finite resources because Brigman ignored the first order. Setting another deadline is 23 not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 24 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of 25 dismissal. 1) OL. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 3 || Tiffany Brigman’s failure to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 4 || the full $405 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s January 12, 2024, order. The Court kindly 5 || directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents 6 || may be filed in this now-closed case. If Tiffany Brigman wishes to pursue her claims, she must 7 || file a complaint in a new case and either pay the required filing fee or properly apply for in forma 8 || pauperis status. 9 DATED this 2 dayof___ May , 2024. 10 Gloria avarro, District Judge UNITE ATES DISTRICT COURT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25

Page 3 of 3